some 50 years, 50-some years

[Tom Friedetzky]

Is there a difference in meaning between "some 50 years ago" and
"thirty-some years ago"? Does the former imply greater accuracy than
the latter? Does the latter only allow for one-sided error, that is,
could one refer to "49 years ago" as "50-some"?

[Tom Friedetzky]

On Thu Jan 14 2016 at 10:55:46 UTC, Tom Friedetzky <tom-...@friedetzky.org> wrote:
> Is there a difference in meaning between "some 50 years ago" and
> "thirty-some years ago"? Does the former imply greater accuracy than

... between "some 50 years ago" and "fifty-some years ago" is what I meant to write.

[GordonD]

I would say "fifty-odd years ago" which has the same meaning as "some
fifty years ago". "Fifty-some" isn't something I would usually say.
--
Gordon Davie
Edinburgh, Scotland

[Peter Moylan]

Agreed; but I would use "fifty-something" to mean a number between 51
and 59.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia

[Harrison Hill]

I'd say:
"some 50 years ago".
"about 50 years ago".
"approx 50 years ago".
"fifty-odd years ago".
"fifty or so years ago".
"fifty-ish years ago".
"fifty years ago - give or take".

but never:
"fifty-some years ago"?

All would be accurate to [+/-] 5 years [either way].

[Katy Jennison]

On 14/01/2016 10:57, Tom Friedetzky wrote:

In MyE, "some fifty years" means "approximately fifty years", whereas
"fifty-some" means fifty plus a few.

--
Katy Jennison

[Harrison Hill]

Also I'd say "fifty-something years ago".

[Tom Friedetzky]

Thanks, that coincides with my usage, for what it's worth.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Yes. I think that that's the distinction I would make.


--
athel

[Tony Cooper]

I recently used "thirty-some years ago" in a post in this group. The
meaning is that the event took place somewhere between 30 and 39 years
ago, but I don't remember the exact date.

If I had written "some 30 years ago", I would have meant between
20-something and 30-something years ago.

It's a difference in accuracy, but a difference in setting the lower
bar.



--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

[Stan Brown]

Yes, "some 50 years ago" means "about 50 years ago". "Thirty-some
years ago" means "thirty to thirty-nine years ago", or as we might
now say "thirty-ish".

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://BrownMath.com/
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
"The difference between the /almost right/ word and the
/right/ word is ... the difference between the lightning-bug
and the lightning." --Mark Twain

[Robert Bannister]

"Fifty-some" simply does not exist in any English dialects I have been
closely acquainted with.

--
Robert B.

[Tony Cooper]

Robert, meet Tony. I have been married for 50-some years. Please
don't me stop and count. My wife might be listening.

[Lewis]

In message <dfr6kb...@mid.individual.net>

Fifty-something means, as someone else pointed out, something in the
range of 50-59. Fifty-some means a number around 50. Maybe a bit more,
maybe a bit less. Maybe even 50.


--
I have as much authority as the Pope, I just don't have as many people
who believe it.

[bill van]

In article <dfr6kb...@mid.individual.net>,

In Canadian English, it is what the English call "bog standard", even if
"bog standard" isn't.
--
bill

[Janet]

In article <dfr6kb...@mid.individual.net>, rob...@clubtelco.com
says...

"Fifty-something" is very familiar in the ones I'm familiar with
(Ditto twenty, thirty, forty-something eetcetc)

Janet.

[Ian Noble]

I was about to make the same observation. Whereas "some fifty" means,
to me, "about fifty" (could be a few more or less)..

Cheers - Ian
(BrE: Yorks., Hants.)


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Robert Bannister]

I have known a number of Canadians, but they all seemed to have slightly
different ways of speaking, so I cannot claim close acquaintance with
any version of Canadian English.

--
Robert B.

[Stan Brown]

On Fri, 15 Jan 2016 11:16:27 +0800, Robert Bannister wrote:
> "Fifty-some" simply does not exist in any English dialects I have been
> closely acquainted with.
>

It's standard AmE. I don't think it can go above "ninety-some",
though.

[Stan Brown]

On Fri, 15 Jan 2016 05:51:33 -0000 (UTC), Lewis wrote:
> Fifty-some means a number around 50. Maybe a bit more,
> maybe a bit less.
>

No, not "maybe a bit less". "50, maybe more, maybe less" is "some
50".

[Lewis]

In message <MPG.31037320...@news.individual.net>

Stan Brown <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jan 2016 05:51:33 -0000 (UTC), Lewis wrote:
>> Fifty-some means a number around 50. Maybe a bit more,
>> maybe a bit less.
>>

> No, not "maybe a bit less". "50, maybe more, maybe less" is "some
> 50".

For you, sure. I am not sure I've ever said some 50, but maybe I have.
It sounds very old fashioned and somewhat ignorant to me. "Wail, A
rekkon it were maybe some fifty yars ago when thar mule escaped."

--
Knowledge, information, power, words... flying through the air,
invisible... And suddenly the world was tap-dancing on quicksand. In
that case, the prize went to the best dancer. --The Fifth Elephant

[bill van]

In article <dfti7n...@mid.individual.net>,

The country is big enough to have regional accents and regional usages,
but the divergences are not that great. Even Newfoundlanders are
starting to sound like the rest of us.
--
bill

[Jerry Friedman]

On 1/15/16 9:32 PM, Lewis wrote:
> In message <MPG.31037320...@news.individual.net>
> Stan Brown <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> On Fri, 15 Jan 2016 05:51:33 -0000 (UTC), Lewis wrote:
>>> Fifty-some means a number around 50. Maybe a bit more,
>>> maybe a bit less.
>>>
>
>> No, not "maybe a bit less". "50, maybe more, maybe less" is "some
>> 50".
>
> For you, sure.

For me, "fifty-some", "fifty-something", and "fifty-odd" all mean 51-59.
(I'd be surprised for any of them to mean 50.)

> I am not sure I've ever said some 50, but maybe I have.
> It sounds very old fashioned and somewhat ignorant to me. "Wail, A
> rekkon it were maybe some fifty yars ago when thar mule escaped."

It sounds old-fashioned and high-falutin to me. "I dare say it was some
fifty years ago that the aforesaid hunter escaped." I'd probably say
"something like fifty years ago" or "maybe fifty years ago".

--
Jerry Friedman

[Rich Ulrich]

On Fri, 15 Jan 2016 21:20:17 -0500, Stan Brown
<the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:

>On Fri, 15 Jan 2016 11:16:27 +0800, Robert Bannister wrote:
>> "Fifty-some" simply does not exist in any English dialects I have been
>> closely acquainted with.
>>
>
>It's standard AmE. I don't think it can go above "ninety-some",
>though.

The scale gets coarser: I might say "two hundred-some",
though "two hundred-something" would be more likely.

--
Rich Ulrich

[Dingbat]

The story goes that Lincoln might have changed "80 odd years" to "four score and ..." after seeing a rabbi's speech published in a Philadelphia paper/ journal.

July 4, 1863 was a Saturday, and Rabbi Sabato Morais, a Sephardi
immigrant from Italy serving as religious leader of Philadelphia's
Mikveh Israel Congregation, delivered his Sabbath morning sermon. His
sermon contains a phrase that might well have influenced the most
celebrated speech in American history.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marc-saperstein/gettysburg-address-jewish-connection_b_3539959.html

When Rabbi Morais wrote the speech, he did not know whether the
Confederates would break through Union lines and reach Philadelphia.
Choosing King Hezekiah's words during the Assyrian siege of Jerusalem:
"This is a day of trouble, of rebuke, and derision" (Isa. 37:3) to
reflect the mood, he alluded to the battle at Gettysburg some ninety
miles away. He continued, "I am not indifferent, my dear friends, to
the event, which four score and seven years ago, brought to this new
world light and joy."

[GordonD]

Well, in the context of a marriage you probably wouldn't want to
describe it as "50-*odd* years"...

[Stan Brown]

I would understand what you meant, and I certainly wouldn't think of
it as wrong. My preference would be for "upwards of 200" or something
along those lines.

[Stan Brown]

This thread has reminded me of a phrase I've never really understood
well. People will say something costs e,g, "north of six million".

It does mean more than $6 million, right?

Is this expression at all widespread?

Is there an equivalent expression for less than $6 million?

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Stan Brown skrev:

> This thread has reminded me of a phrase I've never really understood
> well. People will say something costs e,g, "north of six million".

> It does mean more than $6 million, right?

I've never heard it before, but it works well in regions that put
North at the top of maps.

Unless it's coined by an Australian who uses it as "less than".

--
Bertel - stadig med Linux

[Tom Friedetzky]

On Sat Jan 16 2016 at 14:09:07 UTC, Stan Brown <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> This thread has reminded me of a phrase I've never really understood
> well. People will say something costs e,g, "north of six million".
>
> It does mean more than $6 million, right?
>
> Is this expression at all widespread?
>
> Is there an equivalent expression for less than $6 million?

Caveat: I'm not a native speaker, but have lived in the UK and Canada
for some 15 years (or "15 year", as they say up here). That said,
"north of" in this context is in my active vocabulary. I don't think I
made it up myself, so I reckon I must have heard it somewhere. The same
goes for "south of", which to me means "less than"; I do however think I
hear "shy of" somewhat more often.

Follow-up: what, in this context, might be the opposite of "shy of"? I
don't think I've ever heard "bold of" (or any other antonym of "shy").

[RH Draney]

On 1/16/2016 7:27 AM, Tom Friedetzky wrote:
>
> Caveat: I'm not a native speaker, but have lived in the UK and Canada
> for some 15 years (or "15 year", as they say up here). That said,
> "north of" in this context is in my active vocabulary. I don't think I
> made it up myself, so I reckon I must have heard it somewhere. The same
> goes for "south of", which to me means "less than"; I do however think I
> hear "shy of" somewhat more often.
>
> Follow-up: what, in this context, might be the opposite of "shy of"? I
> don't think I've ever heard "bold of" (or any other antonym of "shy").

"Proud of" is used this way in woodworking....r

[Horace LaBadie]

In article <slrnn9kl0i....@friedetzky.org>,

Proud.

In woodworking, something that protrudes above the surface is called
proud.

[Tony Cooper]

On Sat, 16 Jan 2016 09:09:07 -0500, Stan Brown
<the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:

>This thread has reminded me of a phrase I've never really understood
>well. People will say something costs e,g, "north of six million".
>
>It does mean more than $6 million, right?

Yes, some undetermined amount greater than $6 million but less than $7
million.

>Is this expression at all widespread?

Dunno if "widespread" is applicable, but hardly something I haven't
come across.

>
>Is there an equivalent expression for less than $6 million?

Yes, "north of $5 million."

[Richard Tobin]

In article <7v2l9btmpa30av862...@4ax.com>,

Tony Cooper <tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>This thread has reminded me of a phrase I've never really understood
>>well. People will say something costs e,g, "north of six million".

>>It does mean more than $6 million, right?

>Yes, some undetermined amount greater than $6 million but less than $7
>million.

I don't take it to imply less than $7 million.

The sort of context where I'd expect it is news about a project that
has gone over budget: "the cost of the new ferry was originally
estimated at $4 million, but as a result of <whatever> is now likely
to be north of $6 million".

It implies that it's more than $6 million, but you don't know exactly
how much more. It's not just an approximation like "six point
something million", but one based on inability to predict the value.
It could turn out to be $8 million.

-- Richard

[Jerry Friedman]

Ditto, except that I rarely hear about ferries in New Mexico.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Stan Brown]

I worked with some printers, years ago, and they used to say things
like "that's a strong 21 picas" meaning it was really in excess of 21
picas. I don't know if that is (was) standard printers' jargon, or
peculiar to that group.

[Tony Cooper]

I don't see it that way. I assume the figure $6 million was picked as
the upper estimate number. If the writer thought the figure would be
as high as $8 million, the statement would be something that indicates
a wider spread: "The final cost is estimated to be one to two million
higher than the $6 million budget".

If the writer actually expects the figure to be as high as $8 million,
it would be misleading of him to write "north of $6 million" unless
it's something like "The final costs are estimated to be quite a bit
north of the $6 million budget."

[Katy Jennison]

I expect that's why they turn out to cost so much more.

--
Katy Jennison

[Mark Brader]

Stan Brown:

> This thread has reminded me of a phrase I've never really understood
> well. People will say something costs e,g, "north of six million".
>
> It does mean more than $6 million, right?

Yes.

> Is this expression at all widespread?

It strikes me as the sort of thing that Tom Clancy would have had
his characters say in order to make their speech more colorful --
I'd be willing to believe that's where I'd come across it, only
just now I tried a Google Books search for "north of * million"
in his books and the only example was in a coauthored one that
I haven't read.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "To err is human, but to error requires a computer."
m...@vex.net | -- Harry Lethall

My text in this article is in the public domain.

[Lewis]

In message <MPG.310419134...@news.individual.net>

Stan Brown <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> This thread has reminded me of a phrase I've never really understood
> well. People will say something costs e,g, "north of six million".

> It does mean more than $6 million, right?

Yes.

> Is this expression at all widespread?

Yes. Also "northward of..."

> Is there an equivalent expression for less than $6 million?

A bit south of...


--
Some books are undeservedly forgotten; none are undeservedly remembered

[Anders D. Nygaard]

On 16-01-2016 15:06, Stan Brown wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Jan 2016 01:11:30 -0500, Rich Ulrich wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 15 Jan 2016 21:20:17 -0500, Stan Brown
>> <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 15 Jan 2016 11:16:27 +0800, Robert Bannister wrote:
>>>> "Fifty-some" simply does not exist in any English dialects I have been
>>>> closely acquainted with.
>>>
>>> It's standard AmE. I don't think it can go above "ninety-some",
>>> though.
>>
>> The scale gets coarser: I might say "two hundred-some",
>> though "two hundred-something" would be more likely.
>
> I would understand what you meant, and I certainly wouldn't think of
> it as wrong. My preference would be for "upwards of 200" or something
> along those lines.

I've always understood "upwards of X" to mean "X or maybe a bit less",
but then I'm not a native.

/Anders, Denmark

[Anders D. Nygaard]

On 15-01-2016 02:03, Stan Brown wrote:

> On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 10:55:46 -0000 (UTC), Tom Friedetzky wrote:
>>
>> Is there a difference in meaning between "some 50 years ago" and
>> "thirty-some years ago"? Does the former imply greater accuracy than

>> the latter? Does the latter only allow for one-sided error, that is,
>> could one refer to "49 years ago" as "50-some"?
>

> Yes, "some 50 years ago" means "about 50 years ago". "Thirty-some
> years ago" means "thirty to thirty-nine years ago", or as we might
> now say "thirty-ish".

I would definitely interpret "thirty-ish" to mean "approximately 30",
including 29 and 31, but probably not 39.

/Anders, Denmark.

[Rich Ulrich]

I'm a native who made that same mistake for years.

I am sure I mis-learned "upwards of X" from context, and it
was when I was about 30 that I ran into some clear example
that made me look it up and learn that it was "X or above".

--
Rich Ulrich

[Stan Brown]

On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 15:17:19 +0100, Anders D. Nygaard wrote:
>
> I've always understood "upwards of X" to mean "X or maybe a bit less",
> but then I'm not a native.
>
> /Anders, Denmark

I think "upwards of X" must mean greater than X. If you described 190
as "upwards of 200", I would be confused.

[RH Draney]

On 1/17/2016 6:40 PM, Stan Brown wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 15:17:19 +0100, Anders D. Nygaard wrote:
>>
>> I've always understood "upwards of X" to mean "X or maybe a bit less",
>> but then I'm not a native.
>

> I think "upwards of X" must mean greater than X. If you described 190
> as "upwards of 200", I would be confused.

In English, "up" means "greater than", as in the recommendation found on
toys: "Ages 8 and up"....r

[Rich Ulrich]

On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 23:51:17 -0700, RH Draney <dado...@cox.net>
wrote:

I'm pretty sure that what led me astray was the "of" in
"upwards of X", since the phrase clearly was "<something> of X";
and that model (it seems to me) seldom means over-100% .

So, there.

--
Rich Ulrich

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 23:51:17 -0700, RH Draney <dado...@cox.net> wrote:

That mention of "up" has triggered minor STS.

"Moving On Up" by M People - lyrics
http://www.lyricsfreak.com/m/m+people/moving+on+up_20086206.html

The chorus:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqwborlxOwo&feature=youtu.be&t=53s


--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Monday, January 18, 2016 at 7:04:45 AM UTC-5, PeterWD wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 23:51:17 -0700, RH Draney <dado...@cox.net> wrote:
> >On 1/17/2016 6:40 PM, Stan Brown wrote:
> >> On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 15:17:19 +0100, Anders D. Nygaard wrote:

> >>> I've always understood "upwards of X" to mean "X or maybe a bit less",
> >>> but then I'm not a native.
> >> I think "upwards of X" must mean greater than X. If you described 190
> >> as "upwards of 200", I would be confused.
> >In English, "up" means "greater than", as in the recommendation found on
> >toys: "Ages 8 and up"....r
>
> That mention of "up" has triggered minor STS.
>
> "Moving On Up" by M People - lyrics
> http://www.lyricsfreak.com/m/m+people/moving+on+up_20086206.html

Oh -- not the theme song to *The Jeffersons*.

> The chorus:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqwborlxOwo&feature=youtu.be&t=53s

[GordonD]

Unless it was a woman...

[Charles Bishop]

In article <hlabadie-70FEFD...@aioe.org>,

In romance novels, not that I know first hand, you understand, the
female romance interest can be said to have "high, proud, breasts". I'm
not sure what meaning I ascribed to "proud" in this instance, even
knowing the woodworking usage. "Perky" didn't seem to fit, size didn't
seem to be implied, location even less so (though "high" might cover
that).

I had intended to do research, but got distracted.

--
charles

[Peter Moylan]

On 2016-Jan-19 11:46, Charles Bishop wrote:

> In romance novels, not that I know first hand, you understand, the
> female romance interest can be said to have "high, proud, breasts". I'm
> not sure what meaning I ascribed to "proud" in this instance, even
> knowing the woodworking usage. "Perky" didn't seem to fit, size didn't
> seem to be implied, location even less so (though "high" might cover
> that).

"Proud" is the opposite of "flat".

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia

[Will Parsons]

On Monday, 18 Jan 2016 9:23 PM -0500, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 2016-Jan-19 11:46, Charles Bishop wrote:
>
>> In romance novels, not that I know first hand, you understand, the
>> female romance interest can be said to have "high, proud, breasts". I'm
>> not sure what meaning I ascribed to "proud" in this instance, even
>> knowing the woodworking usage. "Perky" didn't seem to fit, size didn't
>> seem to be implied, location even less so (though "high" might cover
>> that).
>
> "Proud" is the opposite of "flat".

Note also the term "proud flesh", i.e., flesh that is swollen.

--
Will

[Lewis]

In message <ctbishop-DDB5FE...@news.individual.net>

The sense of proud that means excellent, imposing, prominent. Same as
"he stood tall and proud."


--
'Can't argue with the truth, sir.' 'In my experience, Vimes, you can
argue with anything.'

[Charles Bishop]

In article <n7k6i1$ktj$4...@dont-email.me>,

Peter Moylan <pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

> On 2016-Jan-19 11:46, Charles Bishop wrote:
>
> > In romance novels, not that I know first hand, you understand, the
> > female romance interest can be said to have "high, proud, breasts". I'm
> > not sure what meaning I ascribed to "proud" in this instance, even
> > knowing the woodworking usage. "Perky" didn't seem to fit, size didn't
> > seem to be implied, location even less so (though "high" might cover
> > that).
>
> "Proud" is the opposite of "flat".

Yes, but I think there is more to it than just having breasts (or just
small breasts), some positive attribute. Of course since it's romance
novels (or period novels) it's likely to be as set phrase.

--
charles

[Janet]

In article <ctbishop-14772C...@news.individual.net>,
ctbi...@earthlink.net says...

I 've heard doctors use " proud scar", meaning keloid.

Janet